• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 7 (November 2025)
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

Research summary: Classical Ethics in A/IS

July 12, 2020

Summary contributed by Camylle Lanteigne (@CamLante), who’s currently pursuing a Master’s in Public Policy at Concordia University and whose work on social robots and empathy has been featured on Vox.

This summary is based on a chapter of Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Full citation at the bottom.


The ethical implications of autonomous and intelligent systems (A/IS) are, by now, notably numerous and complex. This chapter of Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems by The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems simultaneously adds some definition to the issues surrounding the ethics of autonomous systems by providing clear analysis and recommendations. The topics of inquiry covered in the paper are wide, and each is given between two and four pages of background and subsequent recommendations. At the end of each section, readers will be happy to find a list of further readings if they wish to dive deeper into a specific topic.

The topics covered include, for instance: making ethical concepts and philosophical vocabulary accessible to programmers, policymakers, companies, and other stakeholders; the importance of considering Buddhist, Ubuntu, and Shinto ethics along with typically Western ethical traditions like consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics; an overview of what Buddhist, Ubuntu, and Shinto ethical perspectives can contribute to the discourse surrounding A/IS; the impact of automation in the workplace; the importance of maintaining human autonomy; and the implications of cultural migration for A/IS. The overarching theme that unites these specific topics and the others presented in the paper is the role of classical ethics in the creation, implementation, and use of A/IS. The insights provided on these topics and others covered in the paper can be understood as offering meta-analysis of how ethics and A/IS should interact.

Three features of this piece standout: its use of “A/IS” instead of “AI”, its balanced view concerning ethical implications, and that it features Buddhist, Ubuntu, and Shinto value systems.

First, the authors make a point of using “A/IS” (autonomous and intelligent systems), instead of AI (artificial intelligence) throughout their analysis. This may seem innocuous, but it highlights the authors’ commitment to taking a critical stance towards applying “classical concepts of anthropomorphic autonomy to machines” (p. 37). Using A/IS instead of AI limits these potentially misleading connotations, and gives a more nuanced description of these technologies. This is significant, according to the authors, as it helps orient ethical concerns with regards to A/IS towards established ethical issues, instead of conjuring up insubstantial ones because of misleading terminology.

Second, the paper presents a balanced view of the expected ethical implication of A/IS. While it makes clear that A/IS carry important ethical risks, it also emphasizes that A/IS have had and can continue to have very positive effects on societies. In addition, the authors make tangible recommendations to help make ethics more accessible, more representative, and better-implemented into A/IS.

Third, the authors include Buddhist, Ubuntu, and Shinto ethics in their analysis, and advocate for these traditions’ inclusion in the wider debate about the ethical implications of A/IS. They highlight the possible importance of the Buddhist view on privacy in the context of A/IS. For instance, from a Buddhist perspective, privacy is not merely an individual protection, but a necessity “for a well-functioning society to prosper in the globalized world.” In addition, the paper emphasizes how Buddhism, Ubuntu and Shinto traditions are marked by relationships – not only with other human beings, but with oneself, too, as well as with A/IS.

The authors also explain why the hegemony of typical Western ethics is cause for concern. One central impact of Western ethics’ monopoly on the A/IS ethics discourse is related to standardization as highlighted by Pak-Hang Wong, and which the authors behind the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems cite. According to Wong, making Western ethics the standard (in this case, specifically to evaluate A/IS systems) is a problem because it indirectly assigns greater value to Western ethics than other traditions, establishing the former as “the normative criteria for inclusion to the global network” (Wong, 2016). Following this, the authors note that, in light of this standardization, it falls on those who work outside the accepted standard to devise ways to include other ethical traditions and value systems. They then mention that “liberal values arose out of conflicts of cultural and subcultural differences and are designed to be accommodating enough to include a rather wide range of differences.” (pp. 50-51)

While this may be true, it sidesteps the fact that even though liberal values may be flexible enough to eventually accommodate different value systems, such accommodating is unlikely to come without at least some pushback. What is more, it appears this pushback may overwhelmingly place the burden on individuals from outside the West and/or are already marginalized to advocate for the inclusion of Buddhist, Ubuntu, Shinto, and other perspectives. Considering the power and dominance Western ethics and values possess, it is clear that the struggle to get Eastern and other ethical traditions and value systems (like Indigenous ones) “accommodated” by liberal values will be an unequal one. Later on in the text, the authors nonetheless highlight that “intentionally making space for ethical pluralism is one potential antidote to dominance of the conversation by liberal thought, with its legacy of Western colonialism.” Indeed, if we are to include ethical traditions other than the Western one and make the struggle to do so fairer, the ethics of A/IS community will have to work to create space for these non-Western value systems.


The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. “Classical Ethics in A/IS” in Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition. IEEE, 2019, 36-67. https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

ALL IN Conference 2025: Four Key Takeaways from Montreal

Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

AI Policy Corner: Restriction vs. Regulation: Comparing State Approaches to AI Mental Health Legislation

Beyond Consultation: Building Inclusive AI Governance for Canada’s Democratic Future

AI Policy Corner: U.S. Executive Order on Advancing AI Education for American Youth

related posts

  • Studying up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?

    Studying up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?

  • AI Ethics: Inclusivity in Smart Cities

    AI Ethics: Inclusivity in Smart Cities

  • International Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence, and the Challenge for the Pondering State: Time...

    International Human Rights, Artificial Intelligence, and the Challenge for the Pondering State: Time...

  • Sociological Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: A Typological Reading

    Sociological Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: A Typological Reading

  • Theorizing Femininity in AI: a Framework for Undoing Technology’s Gender Troubles (Research Summary)

    Theorizing Femininity in AI: a Framework for Undoing Technology’s Gender Troubles (Research Summary)

  • Enhancing Trust in AI Through Industry Self-Governance

    Enhancing Trust in AI Through Industry Self-Governance

  • Sex Trouble: Sex/Gender Slippage, Sex Confusion, and Sex Obsession in Machine Learning Using Electro...

    Sex Trouble: Sex/Gender Slippage, Sex Confusion, and Sex Obsession in Machine Learning Using Electro...

  • Melting contestation: insurance fairness and machine learning

    Melting contestation: insurance fairness and machine learning

  • Unlocking Accuracy and Fairness in Differentially Private Image Classification

    Unlocking Accuracy and Fairness in Differentially Private Image Classification

  • The Return on Investment in AI Ethics: A Holistic Framework

    The Return on Investment in AI Ethics: A Holistic Framework

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.